Jun 192012
 

Singer, songwriter, comedian Lisa Koch wrote the lyrics and performed this on-point parody, slightly modified in response to the silencing of Michigan Rep. Lisa Brown for using the word “vagina” in a debate over legislation on the subject.

Hands Off My Clam
Copyright 2012 Tongueinchc Productions

I’d like to do a song right now on the recent attack on women, ’cause no one knows more about women’s issues than middle-aged white men with comb-overs.

To the tune of “Stand By Your Man
Sometimes, it’s hard to be a woman.
‘Specially right now, it’s just a crime.
There’s a war on women.
It’s lookin’ grim and
sending us right back to Medieval times.

The GOP, they’re on a mission,’cause men know what’s best for all us gals. Apparently.
They’re rollin’ back the ’60s, pullin’ out all their tricksies …
I can’t believe I still have to protest this shit. Seriously?

Hands off my clam, my uterus and ova.
Yes, we need birth controll-a
’cause you won’t wrap your pickle.

Hands off my clam, my cervix and vajayjay.
Your moral crap is just a sham.
Hands off my clam.

Don’t you guys have anything better to do, like jobs, or the economy? Or passing any legislation whatsoever? But no, you are frightened of my vagina. Vagina, vagina, vagina, vagina. I said it. To be fair, you’re frightened of a lot of things: gay marriage, evolution, Harry Potter, Rachel Maddow, NPR, WNBA … the list goes on.

Oh, but I mean, wouldn’t you like to just climb into the teeny, tiny brains of these guys and hear exactly what they’re thinking?

To tune of “If I Only Had a Brain“:
I’d eliminate abortions,
with murder and extortion,
’cause fetuses are peeps. Yes, they are!
I’d defund contraception,
say the hell with sex prevention,
’cause there’s Jesus in my heart.

I would vote against gay marriage
and fags I would disparage,
But Lesbians, well … I like to watch them on porn.
If you’re queer best beware
’cause Mitt Romney’s cuttin’ hair,
and there’s Jesus in my heart.

I’d slice and dice and cut
like Head Start, what a bore.
Cut meals and housing for the old and poor
and then I’d golf, and cut some more.

If your husband likes to beatcha,
just smile ’cause it’ll teach ya
to always toe the line.
And your pay will be smaller
76 cents on the dollar
’cause the Bible said it’s fine.

Oh. Oh, God, we’re in trouble, aren’t we? It is not pretty out there. You know, things would be really simple if I was in charge. If I was in charge …

I’d propose new legislation
Viagra regulation
to keep men safe from harm
(Oh, it’s for your own good.)
I’d require a rectal
with a giant, cold projectile
and electrodes on your bacon
so we’d know if you were fakin’…

Oh, I’m sorry. That was my outside voice, wasn’t it? Yeah.

Well, the point is, after you have had your exam, you’d have to go through a mandatory waiting period, and then you have to attend a class, and then you’d have to watch a movie on potential side effects.

And then you’d have to discuss the moral implications of killing perpetually thousands of “sperm-persons” every time you unload. And then you’d have to wait two weeks, at least, until you got your prescription. And then, uh, you’d have to pay for it, ’cause insurance doesn’t cover it. Sorry.

If I only was in charge.

So this goes out to all the woman-hating, racist, homophobic batshit crazy fundamentalist right-wing morons and your big ‘ol corporate Daddy Top: Get your head out of my oven.

Hands off my clam,
my tubes and my poonany.
Your moral crap is just a sham.
Hands off my clam!

Vagina.

Jun 132012
 

choice


Update 6/14/2012: The state House passed a version of this bill 70 to 39 on June 13. 

The State of Michigan is considering one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation: House Bill No. 5711. It could effectively ban the procedure in Michigan.

The bill was introduced by Rep. Bruce Rendon on May 31, 2012. The House Committee on Health Policy passed it just a week later, on June 7, after a brief hearing with little testimony. It sent the bill on to the full House for a second reading, a step closer to passage, by the following vote:

Yeas: Reps. Gail Haines (chair), Mike Callton, Paul Opsommer, Kenneth Kurtz, Wayne Schmidt, Mike Shirkey, Thomas Hooker, Matt Huuki, Paul Muxlow, Ken Yonker, Holly Hughes, Joseph Graves, and Lesia Liss. All Republicans.

Nays: Reps. Thomas Stallworth, Kate Segal, Jimmy Womack, Marcia Hovey-Wright, and Tim Greimel. All Democrats.

 I encourage you to read the bill (full text here) and form your own opinions. I did, and here are mine.

First, consider the following section of the bill:

Sec. 16221. The department may investigate activities related to the practice of a health profession. The department may hold hearings, administer oaths, and order the taking of relevant testimony to be taken [btw, should we allow people who can’t even form proper English sentence structure to make these types of major life-altering decisions for us?]  and shall report its findings to the appropriate disciplinary subcommittee. The disciplinary subcommittee shall proceed… if it finds that 1 or more of the following grounds exist…

This is followed by a list of those actions considered grounds for investigation. One of them is

(vi) Lack of good moral character.

Really? Seems like an awfully vague criterion for setting a disciplinary subcommittee investigation into motion. Lack of good moral character, huh? Wonder what blood test can be administered to check for that. But let’s say this disciplinary subcommittee does use their collective and objective wisdom and decides a medical practitioner lacks good moral character. Then what happens? Under the proposed legislation:

After finding the existence of 1 or more of the grounds for disciplinary subcommittee action listed in section 16221, a disciplinary subcommittee shall impose 1 or more of the following sanctions for each violation:  Probation, limitation, denial, suspension, revocation, restitution, community service, or fine.

I am very uncomfortable thinking such a panel could revoke the medical licenses of practicing physicians based on the vague and subjective criteria proposed in this bill.

The proposed legislation would also require doctors to “Provide the patient with a physical copy of a medically accurate depiction, illustration, or photograph and description of a fetus… at the gestational age nearest the probable gestational age of the patient’s fetus,” and a parenting information pamphlet to consider at least 24 hours prior to her abortion procedure. Because you know how impulsive females are; pass a tattoo parlor, stop in and get a tattoo. Pass a Planned Parenthood and gee, think I’ll pop in and get an abortion.

Not offended yet? The bill would also require your doctor to ask you if your “husband, parents, siblings, relatives, or employer, the father or putative father of the fetus, the parents of the father or putative father of the fetus, or any other individual has engaged in coercion…” (i.e., said or done anything to talk you into your decision). Your response would be documented and you could then be denied access to the procedure, based on your response.

And hey, want a souvenir? “The physician or qualified person… shall provide the patient with the opportunity to view or decline to view an active ultrasound image of the fetus, and offer to provide the patient with a physical picture of the ultrasound image of the fetus before the performance of the abortion.”

That is psychological torture.

You may believe differently, but whatever your stance on abortion, is there any woman anywhere who thinks it’s a good idea to have a government-appointed panel regulating medical ethics? Consider the following quote:

“It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics.”

That’s not from the proposed Michigan legislation. It’s from Adolf Hitler. He wanted control over women’s choices, too.

Abortion legislation causes a political rift capable of hijacking women’s autonomy. I believe opting to have an abortion is the most heart-wrenching and terrible decision a person has to make. If public discussions about abortion are partisan and political instead of fact-based and earnest, we’re really just letting mostly rich, mostly white and mostly male legislators make decisions for us. Not on our behalf. FOR us.

For me, it’s simple. The person most qualified to decide whether to have an abortion is the person most affected: the woman, of course. Why would I think some gray-haired guy in the Senate or House could have some better inside information than I do, right here in my own heart and body? The same goes for you: logically, statistically, you have the most and best information you need to make the decision. Whatever you choose is your decision, just as I’d like to keep it mine. And if our opinions are different, I’m willing to talk about it. But when it comes to those white-haired dudes in the House, I’m pretty sure they’re not really listening.

The bottom line is, when it comes to your reproductive rights, why would you ever give them away? What you believe is just that: your personal belief. Your choice. Please use your voice to secure your choice; don’t give it away.

Jane Pennington